Sumerian cuneiform is one of the earliest known
forms of written expression. First appearing in
the 4th millennium BC in what is now Iraq, it was
dubbed cuneiform (‘wedge-shaped’) because of
the distinctive wedge form of the letters, created
by pressing a reed stylus into wet clay. Early
Sumerian writings were essentially pictograms,
which became simplified in the early and mid 3rd
millennium BC to a series of strokes, along with
a commensurate reduction in the number of
discrete signs used (from c.1500 to 600). The
script system had a very long life and was used
by the Sumerians as well as numerous later
groups – notably the Assyrians, Elamites,
Akkadians and Hittites – for around three
thousand years. Certain signs and phonetic
standards live on in modern languages of the
Middle and Far East, but the writing system is
essentially extinct. It was therefore cause for
great excitement when the ‘code’ of ancient
cuneiform was cracked by a group of English,
French and German Assyriologists and
philologists in the mid 19th century AD. This
opened up a vital source of information about
these ancient groups that could not have been
obtained in any other way.
Cuneiform was used on monuments dedicated to
heroic – and usually royal – individuals, but
perhaps its most important function was that of
record keeping. The palace-based society at Ur
and other large urban centres was accompanied
by a remarkably complex and multifaceted
bureaucracy, which was run by professional
administrators and a priestly class, all of whom
were answerable to central court control. Most of
what we know about the way the culture was run
and administered comes from cuneiform tablets,
which record the everyday running of the temple
and palace complexes in minute detail, as in the
present case. The Barakat Gallery has secured
the services of Professor Lambert (University of
Birmingham), a renowned expert in the
decipherment and translation of cuneiform, to
examine and process the information on these
tablets. The following is a transcription of his
analysis of this tablet:
‘It comes from the period of the Third Dynasty of
Ur, and is dated to the 3rd year of the last king
of the dynasty, Ibbi-Sin, c. 2026 B.C. It is an
administrative document about sheep and goats
in the care of named individuals. Two matters of
translation must be explained. The numerals
used for counting the animals are sexagesimal,
that is they are half decimal, half based on 6,
rising: 1-10-60-600-3600 etc. However only
two symbols are used: a vertical wedge for 1 and
60, a fish-tail shaped wedge for 10 and 600. But
some clarity is created by the place value
notation: the bigger numeral always precedes the
smaller. When a numeral uses a single symbol or
only several of the same, it is ambiguous and
one has to make a judgment. For example, in the
first line of this document common sense tells us
that 180 rams is far too many for a flock of 75
female sheep, so 3 is correct. The scribe is
economical with signs. One Sumerian sign means
“sheep” (female if not specified), and ram is
written with the sign for “sheep” followed by the
sign for “male”. The scribe does this regularly in
the first section but thereafter he writes the
single sign after both numbers, which, literally
translated, produces nonsense, e.g. “72 sheep, 2
sheep”. We have always assumed that he has
saved himself the trouble and translate the
second by “ram”. Similarly with the two Sumerian
signs for “soldier.” This translation is used
because the status of these men was similar to
that of soldiers today: by entering military
service to the crown they lost some of their civil
liberties, but Sumerian soldiers were used for
every kind of labour as well as serving in war
(which was normally restricted to certain seasons
when the fields made no demands). We translate
“soldier” in every case. In the first column the
scribe always writes “soldier of the king”, but
thereafter he writes only “soldier.” Again it
appears he is saving trouble for himself, and
means “soldier of the king” in every case.
Translation:
75 sheep, 3 rams: Nabi-ilishu, king’s soldier.
300 sheep, 1 ram: …lanum, king’s soldier. 70
sheep, 2 rams: Lu-Nanna, king’s soldier. 240
sheep, 2 rams: Shu-ili, king’s soldier. 240 sheep,
1 ram:….rishum, servant of Sin-ellassu. …
.sheep, 1 ram:….king’s soldier. (Damaged
section) Mr Elak-nu’id, first time round. 70
sheep, 1 ram, 1 mature male goat: Puzur-Haya,
soldier. 300 sheep, 1 ram: Gaya. Via Shu-Ashtar,
servant. 180 sheep, 1 ram: Pushu, watchman. 75
sheep, 1 ram, 1 mature male goat. (Damaged
lines and loss of text) 300 sheep, 1 [ram….]-Sin-
[….] 70 sheep, 2 rams:…[….]….sheep, 1 ram: […
.] 300 sheep, 1 ram: [….] Via Puzur- [….] 72
sheep, 2 rams, [1] mature male goat: Tashmi’a,.
servant of Sin-ellassu. 300 sheep, 1 late ram:
Shu-Utela[….] 480 sheep, 1 ram, 1 mature male
goat: Ea-dan. 420 sheep, 1 ram, 1 mature male
goat: Ititi, soldier. 300 sheep, 1 ram: Adallal,
soldier. 300 sheep, 1 ram:….. 3120 s[heep…:]
Adallal [……] Babanum, groom. Total: 8 ewes, 1
female lamb….Total: 120 rams. Total: 2 female
goats, 1 male goat….Total: 9 mature male goats
……180 sheep and goats. Sheep taken by
shepherds: via Babanum, groom. Year: Ibbi-Sin,
king of Ur, destroyed Simurrum.
The details of animals and shepherds taking
them over leaves a lot unexplained, because it
was normal at the time. The men taking over the
animals were professional shepherds, and the
animals belonged to the state (the palace or
temple). The shepherds had to care for the
animals, and at a fixed time every year had to
account to their employers. A fixed percentage
of increase in the number of animals was laid
down: any extra animals above that number
belonged to the shepherds. Thus they had every
incentive to look after the animals well and to
assist their procreation in every way possible.
These rules were well-known and commonly in
force, so the only record needed by the state was
a list of numbers and types of animal and the
names of those entrusted with them, and that is
what this tablet did.’
